07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and did so without her own legal counsel, testified that the property owners do not pay the beekeepers anything to be on the properties at issue and receive no motive other than what is set forth in the rental contract agreement, and testified that "American Bee Project" certifies all beekeepers and instructs them on taxes and business of bee apiary business and argued that there is no "sham" going on as to how the business is being conducted in this capacity in light of the fact that the "American Bee Project" receives a percentage of what the landowner saves in the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification exemption tax savings and none of that savings goes to the bee keepers because the beekeepers make their money on the open market of selling bee products. As a result, Petitioners counsel as counsel, and as a witness, argued that the Petitioners are entitled to the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification for the current year and argued that the undersigned Special Magistrate should grant the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification on all parcels at issue and overturn the denial of the same by the Indian River County Property Appraiser on 4/30/2013 for alI parcels at issue. PROPERTY APPRAISER OPENING ARGUMENT: Eric Barkett, Esq. argued for the property appraiser. Counsel argued that the Petitioners use of property are not "bone fide good faith use" for commercial operations as per Florida Statute 193.461 and as a result are not entitled to the Agricultural Classification and is a "brand new" agricultural use. Eric Barkett, Esq. argued that the property, for example, that is a 20 acre parcel close to the hearing location on U.S. 1 next to an abandoned driving range, is "completely overrun with Brazilian pepper trees" and that as of that past Friday there was only one pallet (4 hives sitting on one pallet) of "beehive" that showed "no living bees on it" on the property that counsel articulated and argued as an "example" of why the denial of the Agricultural Classification that the Petitioner(s) is seeking. Using the 193.461 Statutory Factors: Lengths of time - no bees and no agricultural products have ever been on that property, Counsel argued. The claim of agricultural purposes is a new claim beginning in either December of 2012 or January of 2013 because before that time, Counsel argued, there was no agricultural use. Eric Barkett, Esq. argued that it is a "brand new agricultural use." Eric Barkett, Esq. argued that Petitioner(s) business the "American Bee Project" and part of what that business does is that they (the "American Bee Project") are actively and specifically looking for vacant land in order to avoid the "single largest expense of holding the land" and that is achieved by getting the Agricultural Classification exemption. Counsel pointed to the language of the "American Bee Project" and the "what we do" elements of the documentary evidence submitted by the Petitioners and duly admitted into evidence without objection, to, apparently, bolster his argument that the Petitioners were not acting in "good faith" and as a result that the business is from the "land owners perspective" is to inventory and hold until sale or development until said property can be sold or developed. Counsel for the Property Appraiser appeared to argue that Petitioners were not acting in "good faith" if indeed a landowner inventoried and held until sale or development of property that could then be sold or developed for a greater benefit for the property owner. Primary business to the land owner is the exemption, Counsel argued. Counsel argued that the "American Bee Project" is paid a percentage that the landowner saves in the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification exemption tax savings and none of that savings goes to the bee keepers; that the beekeepers deal with the bees; and as a result the Petitioners should be denied said 11 - 50 -